Duplicate Backgammon?
Illium
I was trying to think of a way of taking some of the luck out of FIBS
Backgammon and replacing it with a greater skill element, and I came up
with this idea, see what you think.
Play would take place on two boards simultaneously (if they could be placed
side by side on the screen this would be an advantage). On board 1 player A
would play white and on board 2 black, and the reverse for player 2. Each
player would play every roll of the dice alternating between boards. The
boards would not be updated until both players had entered their move, any
use of the doubling cube would take place at the same time as the move
entered but on the other board. The final result would be based on the
result of both games taking into account the state of the doubling cube on
each board. If both players play the rolls equally well you might expect
each player to win on one board resulting in either a draw or a match won
with superior use of the doubling cube. If a player wins on both boards
he/she has certainly played with superior tactics and deserves to reap the
appropriate rewards.
This would take a great deal of the element of luck out of individual games
of Backgammon and remove that feel you have that "I could have won that
game with all the lucky rolls my opponent got". Of course this type of game
is not possible in a normal face to face Backgammon match because moves
cannot be syncronised, but FIBS might be able to be adapted to allow this
possibility.
We all like to think that we win by playing better than our opponent, this
would be a way to verify this, well maybe. Feel free to comment.
Regards
William Hill, illium on FIBS
Ron Karr
Something like this has been tried in the past. See Barclay Cooke's "Championship Backgammon" (although it's probably out of print)=
for a description of an international match which was played in duplicate format.
It usually turned out that after a few rolls the games tended to diverge significantly, because of different plays made in the 2 gam=
es. Therefore what was a lucky roll in one game could be an unlucky roll in the other game (e.g. rolling 66 from the bar vs in a ra=
cing situation). So the idea of removing the luck factor was not really accomplished.
Ron
Illium
Ron Karr <ka...@best.com> wrote:
>Something like this has been tried in the past. See Barclay Cooke's
>"Championship Backgammon" (although it's probably out of print)=
> for a description of an international match which was played in duplicate
>format.
>
>It usually turned out that after a few rolls the games tended to diverge
>significantly, because of different plays made in the 2 gam=
>es. Therefore what was a lucky roll in one game could be an unlucky roll in the
>other game (e.g. rolling 66 from the bar vs in a ra=
>cing situation). So the idea of removing the luck factor was not really
>accomplished.
>
>Ron
>
Hi there Fibsters
Thanks to Ron for the above comments. I can see how this type of game might
have been difficult to play in the past, I can just imagine the two players
having to scribble their moves on pieces of paper and handing them to the
umpire. However with the advent of FIBS as the automated umpire it would
become much easier to syncronise moves. I do agree that the two games will
diverge unless the two players are equally good or telepathic, but that is
the whole point, the game no longer depends on the rolls of the dice but on
how skillfully the player makes his moves.
Stig Eide
>If both players play the rolls equally well you might expect
>each player to win on one board resulting in either a draw or a match won
>with superior use of the doubling cube. If a player wins on both boards
>he/she has certainly played with superior tactics and deserves to reap the
>appropriate rewards.
Hi William.
I think this method of reducing the luck element is an illusion.
Imagine the opening roll of 4 and 1. Slotting is considered inferiour
to splitting. But its no problem finding sequences where slotting gives
you a huge advantage when splitting not. But the slotter has not
'certainly played with superior tactics'.
Luck is what makes backgammon the best game (after poker?).
Thats why I left chess.
Stig Eide
KAMccoll
(snip)
> I do agree that the two games will diverge unless the two players are
equally >good or telepathic, but that is the whole point, the game no
longer depends on >the rolls of the dice but on how skillfully the player
makes his moves.
My $0.02 on the subject.... I think that the game will *always* depend, to
some extent, on the rolls of the dice. Ron made a valid point in stating
that a roll in one position can be considered lucky while the roll in a
different position will be unlucky. Illium's statement here assumes that
one player will make the superior move with each roll of the dice. I
believe the choice between moves is often a matter of style rather than
the "right" or "wrong" move. The game plan that develops is also often a
matter of style. The development of the games from the point at which
they diverge still depends on the *rolls of the dice* and how well each
player can use those rolls to develop the two separate games.
Certainly, "duplicate Backgammon" is an interesting exercise, and I
imagine it's a good educational tool, but I don't believe that it would
neutralize the "luck" factor.
Kate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ Kate McCollough ~~~~~ "I dwell in Possibility-" ~~~~
~~~~~ mcc...@gti.net ~~~~~ Emily Dickinson ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
beers van
wrote:
>>Something like this has been tried in the past. See Barclay Cooke's
>>"Championship Backgammon" (although it's probably out of print)=
>> for a description of an international match which was played in duplicate
>>format.
>>
>>It usually turned out that after a few rolls the games tended to diverge
>>significantly, because of different plays made in the 2 gam=
>>es. Therefore what was a lucky roll in one game could be an unlucky roll in the
>>other game (e.g. rolling 66 from the bar vs in a ra=
>>cing situation). So the idea of removing the luck factor was not really
>>accomplished.
>>
>>Ron
>>
>
>Hi there Fibsters
>Thanks to Ron for the above comments. I can see how this type of game might
>have been difficult to play in the past, I can just imagine the two players
>having to scribble their moves on pieces of paper and handing them to the
>umpire. However with the advent of FIBS as the automated umpire it would
>diverge unless the two players are equally good or telepathic, but that is
>the whole point, the game no longer depends on the rolls of the dice but on
>how skillfully the player makes his moves.
>
the dice more HONEST or anything, you would just be playing two games.
The GOOD or BAD way to look at the dice is almost completely
CONTEXT-SENSITIVE, so the real question is ; how mutch can one value a
roll (say 6-6) WITHOUT knowing the position ?
My gut-feeling estimate is that the double rolls will do slightly
better, (but they can cause real crushers too) and the higher the
number the better it will be. But it will be marginal. Backgammon is
not only a race.
Still I would like to see a table of value_for_rolls independent on
the position... If that is possible anyways.
Richard van Beers
Correct theory, wrong universe...
Zebediah J. Carter.
Albert Steg
wrote:
> Certainly, "duplicate Backgammon" is an interesting exercise, and I
> imagine it's a good educational tool, but I don't believe that it would
> neutralize the "luck" factor.
I'm not sure if this will have been said already because my News server
seems to have dropped some postings lately...
The book _Championship Backgammon_ by Barclay Cooke & Rene Orlean (1980)
provides a nicely documented exploration of the "duplicate bg" idea.
Cooke and his son Walter played against the British team of Joe Dwek and
Phillip Martyn (both authors of interesting books of their own).
B Cooke played Dwek, and W. Cooke played Martyn simultaneously, with
teammates playing opposite colors. An official roller of dice announced
each roll to both teams. Play proceeded until both games ended, and
points accrued to each side accordingly over the course of the contest.
(It was cube play, not tournament play). After 8 games the Americams were
up 23 to 7.
Reading the book, you see how quickly the "duplicate" games diverged,
making the whole exercise pretty futile. It's not hard to see why the
concept never cought on. After the first few rolls, the games really have
little basis for comparison.
Interesting book, though.
Albert
BTW: Backgammon is not a quiz. ---And few people who play seriously would
want it to be. The dice factor makes it possible for the weaker player to
win quite frequently, adding to the popularity of the game and making
exciting $ play possible between players of significantly different
strength.
Robert D. Johnson
>Hi there Fibsters
>Thanks to Ron for the above comments. I can see how this type of game might
>have been difficult to play in the past, I can just imagine the two players
>having to scribble their moves on pieces of paper and handing them to the
>umpire. However with the advent of FIBS as the automated umpire it would
>become much easier to syncronise moves. I do agree that the two games will
>diverge unless the two players are equally good or telepathic, but that is
>the whole point, the game no longer depends on the rolls of the dice but on
>how skillfully the player makes his moves.
I suspect Duplicate Backgammon does not reward skillful play too much,
although it *may* help just a tiny bit. There will be occassions,
at the time where board play first deviates, where the inferior
play would get rewarded. After that deviation, you are comparing apples
and oranges -- the boards will be so different. So it amounts to comparing
the successes and failures of the one move where the 1st deviation occurs,
mixed with noise of the moves that follow these variations.
--
Robert D. Johnson (rjohnson) rjoh...@cvbnet.cv.com http://www.cv.com/
Graham Price
: Hi Fibsters
: I was trying to think of a way of taking some of the luck out of FIBS
: Backgammon and replacing it with a greater skill element, and I came up
: with this idea, see what you think.
I remember reading a book or pamphlet about a duplicate match with 4
World Class players in the 80's. I think it may have been Barclay Cooke
and his son against two other players. Games tended to diverge fairly
early and so did not really introduce greater skill because different
positions were being played in spite of the same opening rolls.
gprice
Susan Jane Hogarth
>Luck is what makes backgammon the best game (after poker?).
Nice analogy - backgammon is a _lot_ like poker. Why would you _want_ to remove
or reduce the chance element (not that the dup-game scheme would), except maybe
as an interesting experiment?
--
Susan Jane Hogarth
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
Graham Price
: In article <4g540r$b...@shellx.best.com>,
: Ron Karr <ka...@best.com> wrote:
: >Something like this has been tried in the past. See Barclay Cooke's
: >"Championship Backgammon" (although it's probably out of print)=
: > for a description of an international match which was played in duplicate
: >format.
: >
: >It usually turned out that after a few rolls the games tended to diverge
: >significantly, because of different plays made in the 2 gam=
: >es. Therefore what was a lucky roll in one game could be an unlucky roll in the
: >other game (e.g. rolling 66 from the bar vs in a ra=
: >cing situation). So the idea of removing the luck factor was not really
: >accomplished.
: >
: >Ron
: >
: Hi there Fibsters
: Thanks to Ron for the above comments. I can see how this type of game might
: have been difficult to play in the past, I can just imagine the two players
: having to scribble their moves on pieces of paper and handing them to the
: umpire. However with the advent of FIBS as the automated umpire it would
: become much easier to syncronise moves. I do agree that the two games will
: diverge unless the two players are equally good or telepathic, but that is
: the whole point, the game no longer depends on the rolls of the dice but on
: how skillfully the player makes his moves.
: Regards
: William Hill, illium on FIBS
An additional consideration would be how do you determine the most skillful
moves? If match one goes 4-0 while match 2 goes 0-4 then obviously
if its a match to 5 then in one case a player is playing to win with margin
for error while in the other the player is must win at all costs and it
wouldnt matter if he got gammoned or bg'd. It would be wilder if the cube
was in play too. And then it becomes more a matter of good cube play as
opposed to "correct" checker play. The one whois behind is going to be
much more aggressive than the one who is well ahead. In this case
different moves for the same rolls could both be correct given the
match situation and what may seem insane for a 4-0 leader would make
perfect sense for a 0-4 trailer.
In duplicate bridge you can determine a more or less optimum outcome
but in backgammon there is no way to determine such an animal because
next roll can always make or break you and really you can only say
"over the long run" this move or this strategy is better. But the
immediate case can not really be generalized I would think.
gprice